TOTALLY GEEKED!

Except you want to remove their right and ability to live. The baby is perfectly viable in the environment it was meant to be in. I have used the analogy of holding someone's head under water. Oh looky, you aren't "viable" if i hold your head under water for 20 min, so now you are not a human being. Same with trying to say a fetus isn't "viable". It is viable and will continue to grow and thrive BUT for an abortion.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

So supporting the ripping apart of an unborn child is good, noble?

I think it's sad and selfish.

BUT as long as it has that nice blanket of camouflage so you can feel better about it.

And that "you" is anyone who is "pro choice".

---

 Quote please.

I cannot believe any rational human does not know what a 10-week old embryo looks like.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

So supporting the ripping apart of an unborn child is good, noble?

I think it's sad and selfish.

BUT as long as it has that nice blanket of camouflage so you can feel better about it.

And that "you" is anyone who is "pro choice".

---

 Quote please.

I cannot believe any rational human does not know what a 10-week old embryo looks like.

flan

---

  I know what a 10 week embryo looks like and yes I still believe the embryo is alive and deserves to be protected and has a right to live. 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

So supporting the ripping apart of an unborn child is good, noble?

I think it's sad and selfish.

BUT as long as it has that nice blanket of camouflage so you can feel better about it.

And that "you" is anyone who is "pro choice".

---

 I think abortion is sad and preventable, but I am not willing to say that an undeveloped and unborn being can control and make decisions for a sentient being that has lived and experienced life. We geant different right and abilities to people based on age all the time, this is not any different.

 At one time in American history, YOU would not have any rights.

In a lot of cultures, that's STILL the case.

 

---

 Yeah.  Muslim  Cultures.

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

You still support her "right" to kill her unborn child.
- Lindley

__________________________

I support her right to her body as primary over the rights of another to her body. That's not the same thing and you know it.

Let me ask you this: If someone wants to use your body against your will (a rapist for example), do you support your right to deny them that choice, even if doing so results in their death

---

Comparing a innocent child to a rapist is appalling. 

Lindley wrote:

---

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

You still support her "right" to kill her unborn child.
- Lindley

__________________________

I support her right to her body as primary over the rights of another to her body. That's not the same thing and you know it.

Let me ask you this: If someone wants to use your body against your will (a rapist for example), do you support your right to deny them that choice, even if doing so results in their death

---

Comparing a innocent child to a rapist is appalling. 

---

 And it's stupid.  The child did nothing to get there - the child was PUT there by the actions of the mother (unless, of course, she was raped, but that's the RARE EXCEPTION).

It's the same old same old. They immediately jump to that. For me, the fundamental question is, is this a child or not? Yes or no? If it is, then there is no justification by which to kill it.

The baby has her/his own body and has just as much right to live as anyone else.

Uh huh. It isn't crap. And lots of us have seen surgery.

Yeah really. Talk about bizarre.

ed11563 wrote:

---

I've seen thousands of operations. Never seen an abortion and I'm not starting now with someone's cartoons designed to make people sick.

 

Before anyone watches this crap, they should watch a heart valve being replaced, and an ovarian cyst being removed.

Not cartoons.

 

---

I'm glad someone posted these cartoons.

Before watching them, I was convinced women were aborting hamsters. Now I know. 

I've watched my own surgery, got the tape.

Got mom's and dad's surgeries too.

Watched multiple surgeries when mom worked for a surgeon.

I've seen a 2 year have the skin rolled off its head and face to repair a fractured skull and eye socket.

None of the surgeries I have ever seen involved remove a baby, piece by piece.

Why is this a cartoon?

Probably the same reason my heart cathedrals was explained using animation.

And my tubal.

And my hernia repair.

And my grandmother's artery replacement.

And all the other surgeries before.

Don't pretend animation isn't used to detail medical procedures.

Yes.

Catherine

Catholic

Cath.

Autocorrect.

weltschmerz wrote:

---

ed11563 wrote:

---

I've seen thousands of operations. Never seen an abortion and I'm not starting now with someone's cartoons designed to make people sick.

 

Before anyone watches this crap, they should watch a heart valve being replaced, and an ovarian cyst being removed.

Not cartoons.

 

---

I'm glad someone posted these cartoons.

Before watching them, I was convinced women were aborting hamsters. Now I know. 

---

 Only on alternate Tuesdays. The rest of the time it's armadillos or naked mole rats.

flan

Ohfour wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

That's why I don't care to have a machine do my thinking.

flan

---

 What does this even mean? Are you ok????

---

 Smart phones.

I actually proofread my posts...well, except for "POUTUS" today.

flan

ed11563 wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

The old arguments justifying the killing of an unborn child never change, do they. No, they don't. Not that I've seen.

Science, folks, science and facts.

 

Abortions due to rape are extremely rare Are they? The chance that a woman of child bearing age will become pregnant from a single act of unprotected intercourse are one in six.

But some women won't get pregnant because they are already on birth control, or are already pregnant.

and not all rape victims choose abortion. 5 out of 6 won't become pregnant due to timing, so abortion doesn't enter the equatoin.

Of the 1 in 6 who do become pregnant due to their rapist's actions, how many of THEM have been aborting?

For how many is it a non-issue, because they went to a hospital and were immediately given "Plan B"?

 

 

---

 

---

 Your math is wrong.  Only about 5% of women get pregnant from one incidence of unprotected sex.  And you left out the small percentage of women that are raped.  

Using this example from 2012 - In 2012, 346,830 women were raped. ⁹. According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5%. By applying the pregnancy rate to 346,830 female survivors, RAINN estimates that there were 17,342 pregnancies as a result of rape in 2012.

 

This example assumes none of the women were on birth control and no rapists used condoms.  Assuming the entire 17,342, then you still have to take into consideration the women that choose not to get an abortion or that miscarry.  Also, up to 20 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, with 80 percent of those within the first 12 weeks.  

But, even with those considerations - I'm going to give you the whole 17,342.  There were 699,202 abortions in 2012.  So, we're talking 2.5% of abortions would have been the result of rape. 

 

 

Cheerios4606 wrote:

---

And here I thought the statistics were less than 1%. Thank you for the update dear. Now I can quote the CORRECT yet still dismally low percentage used to justify the pro choice stance.

---

 Well, as I said - I did not take into consideration those that have miscarriages or choose to have the baby.  This assumes that EVERY child of rape is aborted.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

ed11563 wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

The old arguments justifying the killing of an unborn child never change, do they. No, they don't. Not that I've seen.

Science, folks, science and facts.

 

Abortions due to rape are extremely rare Are they? The chance that a woman of child bearing age will become pregnant from a single act of unprotected intercourse are one in six.

But some women won't get pregnant because they are already on birth control, or are already pregnant.

and not all rape victims choose abortion. 5 out of 6 won't become pregnant due to timing, so abortion doesn't enter the equatoin.

Of the 1 in 6 who do become pregnant due to their rapist's actions, how many of THEM have been aborting?

For how many is it a non-issue, because they went to a hospital and were immediately given "Plan B"?

 

 

---

 

---

 Your math is wrong.  No, we're looking at a somewhat different database. Only about 5% of women get pregnant from one incidence of unprotected sex.  Okay, one in ix is based on women of child bearing age who are not using birth control, and are not given Plan B. And you left out the small percentage of women that are raped.  I'd like to think that it's a "small percentage", but that's not relevant. 

Using this example from 2012 - In 2012, 346,830 women were raped. ⁹. According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5%. Take the ones who are too old or too young to get pregnant out of the equation, take our the ones who are infertile due to untreated STDS. By applying the pregnancy rate to 346,830 female survivors, RAINN estimates that there were 17,342 pregnancies as a result of rape in 2012.

 

This example assumes none of the women were on birth control and no rapists used condoms.  Assuming the entire 17,342, then you still have to take into consideration the women that choose not to get an abortion or that miscarry.  Also, up to 20 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, The figures I've read were more like 25% spontaneously miscarry, about 1/4 of those within two weeks of conception... with 80 percent of those within the first 12 weeks.  

But, even with those considerations - I'm going to give you the whole 17,342.  There were 699,202 abortions in 2012.  So, we're talking 2.5% of abortions would have been the result of rape. 

 Okay, I don't see any reason to argue with the 2.5% figure, but so what?  I still have no interest in watching someone's cartoons showing more blood and gore than I've seen in thousands of real-life surgical procedures. 

Someone who has an agenda made cartoons intended to sicken the viewer. People who already agreed with his agenda will no doubt continue to agree with his agenda.

I don't need to watch his crap. 

---

 

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Those operations are for saving lives not killing babies so I really don't get your point ed.

---

 Deflect deflect.

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

Deflect deflect.
- Lady Gaga Snerd

_______________________________

Kind of like not answering the "Should the person have control over their own body even if death of the other is the outcome - Yes or no?" question.

---

 NO!!!!!!!!

Should I have control over my own body and be able to say no to, say, a tattoo? Yes. I should.

Should I have control over my own body and be responsible for my own birth control and STD prevention? Yes.

Should I be allowed to kill my unborn child? Absolutely not.

If its the death of a rapist because he's committing a crime on your body YES. If its an innocent baby there because you chose to have sex then NO. It's a stupid comparison to begin with.
- Tinydancer

______________________

"Yes AND No" wasn't an optional answer.

We will have to agree to disagree on that.

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

If its the death of a rapist because he's committing a crime on your body YES. If its an innocent baby there because you chose to have sex then NO. It's a stupid comparison to begin with.
- Tinydancer

______________________

"Yes AND No" wasn't an optional answer.

---

 It's the only answer to this really stupid comparison. Do you really equate a rapist with a baby? I will never understand those who do it and I will also never understand those who don't speak out against it.